EXT. GOTHAM POLICE HEADQUARTERS - ROOF - NIGHT
In the light of the bat-signal, BATMAN and SUPERMAN are trying to punch each other for some reason.
BATMAN
YOU ARE DANGEROUS!
SUPERMAN
I'm trying the best I can...
BATMAN
YOU ARE--
(beat)
Wait, are you trying to say you aren't
the bad guy?
SUPERMAN
Yes! But no one will listen...
BATMAN
ARE WE BEST FRIENDS NOW?
SUPERMAN
(nods)
Yay!
The two heroes frolic into the sunset together, even though I previously established that this was taking place at night. Somehow, Doomsday is also involved.
TITLE: Justice League Coming Soon.
FADE TO BLACK
<<<<<>>>>>
Okay, so I won't go see Batman v* Superman: Dawn of Justice: Part One of the Justice League Trilogy: Man of Steel Part Two: The Movie until later today, but I feel like the above scene needs to be in there. Superman and Batman are supposedly two conflicting sides of the same coin. The film sells itself on the false premise that the two characters simply can't exist in one film, and that one of them must "win."
I'm not entirely sure why we think the world isn't big enough for both The Dark Knight and The Man of Steel, but the idea sure as hell propels a movie to undeniable box office in defiance of lukewarm reviews. I shouldn't be terribly surprised. So much of our collective rationalization is absolutely dependent on the idea that when two seemingly conflicting ideas present themselves, one of them has to be wrong, and the other right.
Isn't there enough room for nuance in the universe to allow some conflicting things to be true?
Objectivists put the advancement of self-interest as the only truly moral consideration. Altruists believe that the only avenue for humanity to better itself is through service to others. Why can't we individually attain the best versions of ourselves through service to others? Why can't it be both?
Some Republicans say that Donald Trump isn't truly one of them, and that his putsch-like march on Washington is nothing more than opportunism. Others are pretty sure he is a Fascist and an ominous omen** of dark days ahead. Can't he be both?
Some people like ham sandwiches. Others like chicken sandwiches. Some people like both, but at different times. The fine people at Arby's know what's up. They offer the Chicken Cordon Bleu sandwich, and it's... Well, it's fine, but it is certainly both of those things. Only less intelligent creatures than we insist on choosing in instances like this.
In the end, isn't there enough room for both Batman and Superman in theaters and on the shelves of comic book stores? I don't want to spoil the ending of a movie I haven't seen yet, but I tend to imagine that there is plenty of room for the two.
So, dear reader, if you ask me, the easiest way to tell when someone is pulling a fast one on you is if they try to make a binary choice out of a complex decision, whether it is your vote, the type of person you are going to be, what movie to see this weekend, or what type of meat you're willing to entrust to an Arby's employee. Go for the third option; go for the answer that mixes the best of the available information you have in front of you. The world is a much more interesting place when seemingly conflicting things can both be true.
*The actual title of the movie is still 712 pages long. Would the extra "s" to make "vs." have made that much of a difference? I don't get the movies made for the kids these days. And when did they stop making movies about things other than explosions? Also, I remember food tasting better twenty years ago. I'm old and tired.
**I can't get away with that kind of alliteration, can I?